Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Permit Number - T18CM04263
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/03/2018 | PIMA COUNTY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T18CM04263 - PERMIT REVIEW COMMENTS – 2nd review Reviewer: Chris Anderson Date: August 2, 2018 BUIILDING – COMMERCIAL The response to previous Building comment 4 states that “the Site Plan now indicates the building distance from the property line and no fire rating is required for the exterior walls.” However, the resubmitted Site Plan still shows the building (scaled at) approximately 27’ from the east property line and with no dimension from building wall to property line. Please revise all site plans to show correct distance required to avoid fire-rating the exterior wall. Per response to previous Building comment 8, a note has been added to window 2 in the Window Schedule, sheet A2, that the window shall be 20-minute fire-rated. However this wall is shown by sheet A1 keynote 2 to be 1-hour fire-rated. Per 2012 IBC Table 716.6 window assemblies in 1-hour interior walls shall be minimum ¾-hour fire-rated. The response to previous Mechanical comment 5 states “note that the (mechanical) equipment is not mounted on the roof but rather on top of interior structure.” That being the case, the architectural reflected ceiling plan, detail, and building sections on sheets A3 and A4 should show locations for ceiling joists and detail(s). Coordinate with structural. See also new Mechanical comment 4. |
| 08/03/2018 | PIMA COUNTY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | MECHANICAL – COMMERCIAL The response to previous Mechanical comment 1 states “Comcheck to be furnished by Architect.” No building envelope COMcheck was included in this resubmittal package. Please submit a building envelope COMcheck using pre-engineered metal building wall and roof components (rather than metal framed building components) with or without thermal blocks at the roof according to the metal building system proposed. Envelope components in the COMcheck must match what is shown in the drawings. The revised heating and cooling calculations and heating and cooling selection required by previous Mechanical comment 3 are acceptable; however the units shown in the manufacturer’s extended ratings sheet submitted along with the load calculations are not what is shown in the Heat Pump and Outdoor Unit schedules on sheet M-3. Also, to comply with previous Mechanical comment 2 and ME response, the selected units must have a SEER rating of 16. A note at the bottom of page 1 of the revised load calculations specifies “14 SEER or equal.” Please coordinate. The note “Thermostatic control at fan coil” added to sheet M-3 is not an adequate response to the previous Mechanical comment 4. Please expand the note on sheet M-3 to state the intent/features of the thermostatic controls as stated in the previous review comment. The response to previous Mechanical comment 5 states “refer to structural drawings” for support of mechanical units on top of interior structure. No structural calculations or structural details for mechanical unit support were provided with this submittal. |
| 08/03/2018 | PIMA COUNTY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ELECTRICAL – COMMERCIAL Please darken all circuit numbers next to receptacles on the power plan, sheet E2. The grayscale is unreadable without close inspection. In regards to your response to previous Electrical item 2, please identify the color temperature for all exterior light fixtures including fixtures F and G. Per Outdoor Lighting Code 402.1 the maximum color temperature allowed is 3500 K. In regards to your response to previous Electrical item 4, the photometric plan on sheet E7 is not what we require. Please select an exterior lighting option in Outdoor Lighting Code Table 401.1 and multiply the maximum total lumens and maximum allowable unshielded lumens associated with the selected option for lighting area E2 by the “developed area” in acreage to arrive at the maximum lumens (both fully shielded + unshielded) allowed and the maximum allowable unshielded lumens. Most areas of this parcel are touched so use the parcel area as the “developed area” for your calculations. Identify each outdoor fixture in the light fixture schedule as being either “fully shielded” or “unshielded” (see definitions in the OLC) and multiply the rated lumens by the number of each fixture to calculate the proposed total lumens and proposed unshielded lumens for comparison with the allowable total lumens and allowable unshielded lumens previously calculated above. |
| 08/03/2018 | PIMA COUNTY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PLUMBING – COMMERCIAL Regarding the response to previous Plumbing comment 1, the 2012 IRC 412.4.3 requires oil separator(s). The only exception to this requirement is if the hangar area is 2,000 SF or less and no servicing, washing or repair is done in the hangar. The proposed hangar is 6,756 SF so this exception does not apply. The response to previous Plumbing comment 8 says “rain gutter and downspouts sized by Architect..” No calculations requested by the previous reviewer were included in this resubmittal package. Coordinate with Architect to provide. The response to previous Plumbing comment 9 says “see correction of detail C/P-4 to change “gaslock” to” There is no detail C on sheet P-4. Please clarify. |
| 08/10/2018 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: T18CM04263 - New Building (DPS - Airplane Hanger) Building Plan Review (2nd Review) AZ D.P.S. 1910 E. Aero Park Boulevard - I-2 Zoning TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 10, 2018 DUE DATE: August 20, 2018 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. 1. COMMENT: Zoning has reviewed the building plans for compliance with the submitted development package. While the building footprint is consistent with the DP as it relates to the zoning review purview (Building footprint, Height, square footage, site conditions etc) zoning cannot approve the building plans until the PDSD Commercial Plans reviewers have approved the building plans. 2. COMMENT: Zoning will review the building plans on the next submittal as it relates to the zoning review purview and compare the building plan footprint, building height, and square footage and location to ensure consistency with the DP. (Include a copy as reference of the approved and PDSD stamped version of the DP with the next building plan submittal.) 3. COMMENT: If any changes are necessary, due to the PDSD Commercial Plan Reviewer's comments that affect or change the building footprint, height, or square footage, the DP will need to be updated prior to approval of the building plans by Zoning. 4. COMMENT: Once the plans have been reviewed and approved by the 3rd Party and PDSD Commercial Plan Reviewers and zoning has verified consistency with the DP, the building plans can be approved by zoning. If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact David Rivera on Tuesday or Wednesday at (520) 837-4957 or by email David.Rivera@tucsonaz.gov or contact Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: As noted by the zoning comments |
| 08/15/2018 | JOHN VAN WINKLE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T18CM04263 1) Engineering has reviewed the building plans and they are in conformance with the approved DP. Engineering cannot approve the building plans at this time due to outstanding review comments from other departments 2) Engineering can conduct an over the counter review once the above comment has been addressed John Van Winkle, P.E. John.VanWinkle@tucsonaz.gov 520-837-5007 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/08/2018 | SVALENZ1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |